Ebony Joi Faulkenberry v. Novant Health, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:23-cv-00163-MEO-DCK EBONY JOI FAULKENBERRY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) NOVANT HEALTH, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 23), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 29), recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

I. BACKGROUND No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and procedural background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of such matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

III. DISCUSSION Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge shall make a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has been made. A party’s failure to make a timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). No objection to the M&R has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. Therefore, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issue covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a full review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having done so, hereby finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion is, in all respects, in accordance with the law and should be approved.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion.

The Magistrate Judge further recommended that pro se Plaintiff be permitted until December 9, 2025, to properly serve process on Defendant. (Doc. No. 29 at 12). On October 21, 2025, Defendant filed a notice that it agreed to accept service of the Summons and Complaint from Plaintiff via certified mail. (Doc. No. 31). On November 11, 2025, Defendant filed its answer. (Doc. No. 34). Given the circumstances, the portion of the M&R recommending Plaintiff be permitted additional time to serve process is NOT ADOPTED as moot.

IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 29), is ADOPTED in part and NOT ADOPTED in part as described herein; 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 23), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and 3. This case shall proceed toward trial on the merits of the remaining claims in the absence of a voluntary resolution of the dispute among the parties.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 31, 2025 Matthew E. Orso wy United States District Judge ey